16-3093 Fernandez Cruz v. Whitaker BIA Loprest, IJ A201 242 181 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 14th day of January, two thousand nineteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 PETER W. HALL, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 CECILIO FERNANDEZ CRUZ, AKA 13 CECILIO FERNANDEZ, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 16-3093 17 NAC 18 MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTIN 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Zachary Sanders, New York, NY. 24 25 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy 26 Assistant Attorney General; 27 Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant 28 Director; Arthur L. Rabin, Trial 29 Attorney, Office of Immigration 30 Litigation, United States 31 Department of Justice, Washington, 32 DC. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 2 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 3 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 4 is GRANTED. 5 Petitioner Cecilio Fernandez Cruz (“Cruz”), a native and 6 citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of an August 8, 2016 7 decision of the BIA affirming a December 14, 2015 decision of 8 an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Cruz’s application for 9 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 10 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Cecilio Fernandez 11 Cruz, No. A 201 242 181 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2016), aff’g No. A 201 12 242 181 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Dec. 14, 2015). We assume the 13 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural 14 history in this case. 15 Cruz argues that he stated a pattern or practice claim 16 for withholding of removal based on his membership in a 17 particular social group. Specifically, he argues that he 18 offered evidence showing that gangs target young men who 19 resist gang recruitment. The Government argues that Cruz 20 failed to exhaust a pattern or practice claim before the 21 agency. But we conclude that remand is warranted here 22 because whether Cruz is a member of a particular social group 23 and whether he showed a pattern or practice of persecution 2 1 require substantially the same analysis. By arguing the 2 former before the IJ and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals